Joeylawn and Guido: I don't believe Mr. Belt's hypotheses can be peer-reviewed for the most part, any more than the existence of a God can be. This is a 'benefit' to going beyond the known and even the unknown, into the unknowable. Mr. Belt would for practical purposes appear to be a mystic philosopher at best, a charlatan at worst -- not a scientist (he certainly offers no evidence for his claims invoking evolution) -- and not a persuasive, challenging, interesting or enlightening philosopher at that IMO. But that's a personal aesthetic and moral judgement, and to me the realm of audiophilia seems a suitably trivial and bogus arena in which to apply such cheap postulating, whether he actually believes any of it himself or not.
Perhaps more fundamentally, everything I've read on his site so far (all written by May, FWIW) has been far too vague and/or meaningless, and riddled with semantic and/or logical flaws in the reasoning given, for anyone to devise testable predictions based on the 'arguments' presented. Mr. Sheldrake may be more formal with his propositions, and his site does seem to indicate some serious debate and dissent which could flow from testable hypotheses, but I haven't had the chance yet to read any of it beyond the headlines. I'd be a bit curious to know whether and what Mr. Sheldrake might think of Mr. Belt's extrapolations allegedly 'based' on his 'theory' of "Morphic Resonance" (which to me sounds blandly like "The Force" of Star Wars fame, not that such ideas began there). I wouldn't be half surprised if Sheldrake found Belt's nonsensical shtick as incorrect and dishonest as I do, even if for quite different reasons...
